TO:
Attn: dSGEIS Comments
Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources
625 Broadway, Third Floor
Albany NY 12233-6500
dmnsgeis@gw.dec.state.ny.usFROM:
Brian Brock, retired geologist
Franklin NYDATE:
30 December 2009RE: CONSIDERATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO dSGEIS
Aquifer Depths, Database of BOGR states that depths to the base of aquifer is so poorly known that they need to set a default value of 850 feet. Despite this, there in no mention of a database for the driller’s report of the depth of fresh and brine waters at each well, which could be then used to predict depths to the base of the aquifer for future well permits.
Bedding Planes and Fractures Flow of groundwater is usually controlled by these discontinuities, but there is no adequate discussion of bedding planes and fractures in Chapter 4, Geology. Large roadcuts, quarries, railroad tunnels, and aqueduct tunnels can provide data.
County Health Departments Many have neither the expertise or resources to investigate reports of water pollution, as suggested by SGEIS. This responsibility is an unfunded mandate. Health departments from counties in the fairways of the black shales should provide input.
Cumulative Impact Draft SGEIS has only a few scattered and brief discussions of this. If a boom in extraction of gas from black shales develops in NYS (as it has elsewhere), then cumulative impacts will be substantial. Final SGEIS should have comprehensive Cumulative Impact Assessment to include: water withdrawal, waste disposal, traffic, road damage, air pollution, manpower, and community. Current SEQRA handbook covers cumulative impact.
Disclosure of Frac Chemicals to Public While BOGR requires that companies report all chemicals used to them, there is no provision for releasing this information to the public. These chemicals will be injected below the public’s property and might contaminate the public’s drinking water. Without such information, the public can not monitor the purity of its drinking water.
Fairway, Extent of Alpha Environmental consultants defines “fairway” by rock properties (pages 4-14 and 4-18) without considering the setting of the rock units. As a result, Fig. 4.7 and 4.12 show fairways of Utica and Marcellus shales extending north and east to outcroppings. Production of economic quantities of gas require the hydrostatic/lithostatic pressure differential produced by thousands of feet of overlying rock. As drawn, these figures give the mistaken impression that areas that are immediately south and west of shale outcroppings will have gas extraction and should be revised.
Faulting
Figure 4.13 gives the mistaken impression that the fairways for Utica and Marcellus shales are mostly free of faults — faults that could provide pathway for waters from black shales to aquifers. True the figure is labeled “Mapped Faults …”, but the distinction between mapped faults and total faults is not discussed. The bedrock is monotonous and poorly exposed, so probably many faults have gone unmapped. This figure is based on a compilation over 30 years old, and could be updated with data from natural seismicity, seismic imaging, and mapping from NYC reservoir and tunnel construction.Figure 5-1 This schematic of a well pad is confusing at best, and much of it is wrong. If it is of a multi-well pad in development, then it should be so labeled. This figure should be completely redrafted. There is too much wrong to detail here, but contact me if you want suggestions.
Flowback Disposal
Destination Within months of the approval of the final SGEIS, wells will each begin producing hundreds of thousand or millions of gallons of flowback. A safe way to dispose of this is required, but there appears to be none in NYS. Draft SGEIS does not estimate the volume of flowback expected nor discuss which sites could accept this volume.
Reporting In Appendix 6, the proposed Environmental Assessment Form does not require reporting of frac fluids that leave New York State. Given the lack of a significant disposal option in state, most of this water may be sent out of state.Formation Waters, Composition of Draft SGEIS provides a summary of flowback analyses but not analyses of formation waters, despite BOGR regulating gas drilling for over a century. Without such, several key points of the SGEIS can not be finalized, including:
* How can formation waters be distinguished from flowback?
* Can formation waters be processed through POTW?
* Can formation water be safely spread on roads?Frac Trespass
CI Hearings Currently a hearing for compulsory integration can be held after well work is completed as long as land has been leased where drilling takes place. Presumably a frac job is designed to fracture throughout entire drilling unit. May they frac before the whole unit is leased or integrated?
Taking Fracing is a new technology with imperfect control of the extent of resulting fractures. How can neighbors to the drilling unit be assured that fracing will not extend under their properties, neither trespassing nor taking “their” gas?Funding and Staffing Although this is outside the scope of SGEIS, until BOGR obtains adequate resources for enforcement, the public can have no confidence that GEIS and SGEIS are anything more than ink on paper.
ICF International Analysis. Appendix 11
Pore Flow The mathematical analysis of fluid flow through intact rock via pore space (pp. 24 – 31) is a pointless. There is no doubt that 1000 feet of unfractured rock would provide a barrier to frac fluids over short times, but how often is this the case?
Fracture Flow Despite wasting pages on calculating pore-flow rates, ICF dismisses chances of an open flow path from fractures, faults, or well bores as “theoretically possible but extremely unlikely” (pg. 31) without attempting to quantify this risk. The experience of NYC in drilling their aqueduct tunnels suggest that the risk could be substantial.
Reporting Fluid Flow Even if the odds of an open flow pathway “is very small” (pg. 32), given the large number of wells expected, then occurrence of open pathways is almost certain. Therefore one of the required non-routine incidents that drillers should report (Appendix 10, Supplementary Permit Conditions, #46) should be failure to hold pressure or anomalous fluid loss during fracing.
Injection Wells ICF consultants may be correct that high-pressure fracturing for a short time (“typically less than a day per stage”, pg. 34) make it unlikely that frac fluids could immediately reach aquifers. On the other hand, injection wells do pump waste water at high pressures for longer times. The consultants neglect to consider long-time flow of fluids from injection wells. Injection wells remain one of the few ways to dispose of waste water from drilling, flowback, or plugging.
Lack of Evidence The final conclusion (pg. 34): “There are no known incidents of ground water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing.” is deceptive. Because there has been no testing of groundwater before and after fracing by either drillers or BOGR, it is more correct to say that no proof exists that groundwater remains uncontaminated due to hydraulic fracturing. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”Incident Response With a large enough number of wells, everything that could go wrong will go wrong: surface spills, well seeps, aquifer pollution, fires, explosions, etc. While SGEIS requires the reporting of any non-routine incidents by drillers, there is no mention of the response required by BOGR.
Inspections
Frequency For most wells, no inspections are required during the entire life cycle of a site: site preparations, drilling, fracturing, completing, and production. (A single inspection during surface casing is required only for the minority of wells in primary and principal aquifers.) Considering that much of the BOGR oversight is limited to the review of paperwork self-reported by drillers, a minimum number of random and unannounced inspections is necessary to encourage honest reporting and should be required.
Surface Casing and Initial Fracing Site visits should be required for these two steps. These two visits by Mineral Resource Specialists would also allow inspection of the general operation. If this is beyond the current staff, it only argues for an increase in staffing.
Transparency There is no written procedure for monitoring and inspecting a well over its life cycle from site preparation to production. Without this, the public has no way to determine if BOGR is fulfilling its responsibility to protect the environment.
Workload BOGR has stated that it has and will continue to provide sufficient oversight of each gas well. Should there be a rush of permit request, the number of permits issued would be limited by the workload of mineral resource specialists. Neither final GEIS nor draft SGEIS lists what the workload is for permitting and oversight of a single well. Nor is there a limit to the number of active wells in a mineral resources specialist’s caseload. Without such information, the public can not be assured that BOGR is providing sufficient oversight. Without sufficient oversight, GEIS and SGEIS are only ink on paper.Loss of Springs and Wells During the drilling of the first several hundred feet through aquifers, there is a risk of loss or fouling of neighboring water sources until the surface casing is cemented. Special attention in inspection or reporting should be required during this period.
LPG Fracing If this water-free fracing may someday be proposed for use in NYS, will a second SGEIS be required? Wouldn’t it make sense to include this technology in the current SGEIS? Obtaining and disposing of millions of gallons of water for each well constrains future fracing.
Metering Currently BOGR does not require periodic recertification of gas meters at well heads, spot check reading of meters that is done by companies, or audit company records – procedures that are routine in other states. (These deficiencies were cited in NYS Comptroller audit 2005-S-54.) Such procedures are required to assure that landowners and state receive what are legally due them. The much greater volumes of gas produced by horizontal wells make a true accounting all the more important.
Methane in Groundwater Draft SGEIS mentions that methane naturally occurs in groundwater. It does not discuss that this proves that there are pathways between black shales and aquifers — although not necessarily the targeted shales. Gas is much more buoyant and less viscous than frac fluid, and therefore it is not clear how much of these fluids would follow the same pathways and over what time. Nevertheless the nature and implication of these pathways should be discussed.
Multiple Plays There is substantial overlap of the fairways for Marcellus and Utica shales. A smaller area additionally includes the fairway for Herkimer tight sandstones. (Indeed Nornew brags that it has this “triple play” in Madison and Chenango Counties.) There is also a chance of the spotty occurrence of Trenton/BlackRiver plays Multiple plays multiply the effects at each well pad, but the draft SGEIS ignores the effects of multiple plays of gas, particularly on cumulative impacts.
Pollution
Bonding Drillers should be bonded for the clean-up of any pollution caused by their activities. (Currently they are bonded only for plugging well and restoring the site.) Commonly companies will set-up a shell company for drilling each well with assets just sufficient to cover expenses. Without bonding, should there be major pollution, the company has no reserves that could recovered for the clean-up.
Database BOGR can state that it knows of no incident of pollution from fracing in NYS. This claim can not be confirmed because BOGR does not maintain a database of reports of pollution. Such a database should be built.
Liability In neighboring Pennsylvania, any pollution within 1000 feet of well head is presumed to be the responsibility of the driller who must provide sufficient water and remediate the pollution to the satisfaction of DEP. (Purity of the provided water must be independently certified.) There is no such provision in the final GEIS or draft SGEIS. Without it, a individual land owner could have the expense and aggravation of dragging a polluting company through the courts for years to get satisfaction, whereas the owner needs are immediate.
Risk Despite BOGR statement that there are no case of pollution of aquifers from fracing, there are numerous documented cases of pollution of aquifers from gas drilling. To the land owner who has lost their drinking water and a much of the value of their property, the distinction between drilling and fracing is academic. The SGEIS should more fully discuss causes of pollution during the entire drilling process and how to eliminate any causes not covered in GEIS.Publicly-Owned Treatment Works, Appendix 21 Despite this list of 135 POTWs, there is no guarantee that a single one of these works is capable of treating of produced waters, from drilling, flow back, or plugging. POTW do not remove the chemicals from these waters but only dilute the toxins to below legal limits. All the toxins are dumped into the river. Without representative analyses of produced waters, it is not possible to even know if it is safe to pass these waters through these works or what dilution is required. Indeed the vast majority of operators are not even considering applying for permission from DEC to accept this waste. Including this long list in the SGEIS deceptively give the impression that there are many possible sites to receive the waste waters produced.
Refrac Permits Black shales in NYS may be refraced as soon as one year after the initial frac – although five years is more typical elsewhere. Draft SGEIS requires a permit for refracing (8.3.2), but does not specify what information will be necessary to obtain this permit.
Road Spreading of Produced Fluids Permitting for a Beneficial Use Determination for road spreading does not specify what are the acceptable concentration of pollutants.
Set Backs, Residential GEIS requires set backs of 100 feet from drill pads to residences for a single well and this is not increased in the draft SGEIS. This is the smallest setback of any state, with most having setbacks of 200 to 600 feet. Even if this is adequate for single vertical wells, this is inadequate for single horizontal wells, let alone pads of multiple wells, multiple plays, and refacturings. One site could be actively drilled and fractured for three years for a single play.
Seismic Monitoring Fracing is a developing technology with an imperfect control of the extent of resulting fractures. Without seismic monitoring during fracing, the owners of neighboring can not be assured that gas will not be withdrawn from beneath them. At least for a trial period, this should be required for a few wells and the results reported.
Toxicity of Chemicals Draft SGEIS does not compare the toxicity of chemicals used in drilling and fracing, claiming that there is no way to measure this: “there does not seem to be a US-based metric” pg. 9-10. However the Federal Mineral Management Service does such rating of such chemicals in its capacity of regulator of off shore drilling. Their methodology should be applied to the land-based use of such chemicals.
Trial Period Once the final SGEIS is adopted, BOGR should begin with a limited number of permits for the new horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing of low permeability gas shales — maybe one multi-well pad in each county. After a formal review, the annual number of such permits could be gradually increased.
Unconventional Gas Reservoirs While they are mentioned, it would help if there was a brief discussion of the differences among coal beds, tight sandstones, and black shales and of the differences in extracting gas from them.
Water Testing
Composition While water testing is required around the drill site, what is required to be tested does not include chemicals in frac fluids. Without these, results will be less useful for showing contamination. What is more, this testing is not required to be done such that the results would be admissible in a court of law, thereby giving a false sense of security to the property owner.
Location For vertical wells, testing within a circle1000 feet in diameter may be sufficient, but for horizontal wells, a corridor at least 330 feet on either side of the horizontal well bore should be included. Without this, BOGR is assuming that fracing could never pollute aquifers and avoiding any evidence that could contradict.The Bureau of Oil and Gas Regulation is to be commended for compiling so much information for the SGEIS, but much work remains to be done. Indeed, so much needs to be revised in and added to the draft SGEIS that a second round of comments will be necessary before the final SGEIS is adopted. However from my experience with the public hearings this fall at Chenango Valley High School, comments should be limited to written submissions.
Dr. Ronald E. Bishop
Cooperstown, NYDecember 30, 2009
Attention: dSGEIS Comments
Bureau of Oil and Gas Regulation
NYSDEC Division of Mineral Resources
625 Broadway, Third Floor
Albany, NY 12233-6500To Whom It May Concern,
Please accept my comments regarding the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program: Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Reservoirs.
Section 2.2 Public Need and Benefit
I note that economic benefits data are limited to a 5-year time frame and are nearly entirely speculative. A more appropriate time frame would be 50 or more years, including the period after which natural gas reserves (and related revenues) have been exhausted. Refusal to estimate (or even acknowledge) the “bust” phase that follows any projected industrial “boom” constitutes a failure to thoroughly assess the overall economic impact of this industry statewide.
In this context, it is noteworthy that gas wells in the Barnett Shales, projected to produce for 30 to 50 years, have exhibited catastrophic production decline (in spite of repeated hydraulic fracturing) after 4 to 5 years of operation (1), with overall productive life spans of only 7 to 10 years. This suggests that technologies for recovery of gas from shales are immature; therefore, widespread application of the current state of the art runs counter to NYSDEC’s mandate to efficiently exploit the state’s natural gas reserves. A thorough assessment of public benefit (also reflected in Section 4.4.3 Potential for Gas Production and Section 5.16.3 Production Rate) must address this issue.Section 2.4.6 History of Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing in Water Supply Areas
The statement, “No documented instances of groundwater contamination are recorded in the NYSDEC files from previous horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing projects in New York.” is scandalous. These kinds of projects represent a tiny minority of gas wells developed in New York, and so in no way reflect NYSDEC’s history of regulating this industry. Numerous instances of soil and groundwater contamination caused by the gas industry were recently documented by Toxics Targeting, Inc., primarily using sources available to (or maintained by) NYSDEC (2). Equally spurious was the statement, “The reported Chautauqua County incidents, the majority of which occurred in the 1980’s…, could not be substantiated…” Many of these incidents occurred in the period from 2000 to the present, and were substantiated not only by the Chautauqua County Department of Health, but also by the US Geological Survey. My own poll of New York county health officials pointed to other incidents where gas drilling appeared to impact water supplies in Allegany, Chemung, Genesee and Steuben Counties (3). In light of such evidence, this section of the SGEIS should be stricken and replaced with a realistic assessment of gas industry culpability for collateral damage.
Section 3.2.1.1 SGEIS Applicability – Definition of High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
This section minimizes the pervasive issue of scale which, more than any other factor, underlies the need for updated regulations. Compared to the GEIS’ “typical” volume of 80,000 gallons of fluids used per well, the average horizontally-drilled hydraulic fracturing project will involve over 4,000,000 gallons, 50-fold greater volume than was considered in the GEIS. I submit that this difference is not merely “significant”; it is enormous. For example, in spite of technological advances that permit effective additive concentrations one-tenth of those employed 10 years ago, the net result is still more than a five-fold increase in tonnage per gas well. The accompanying increased risk in transfer-related mishaps (arguably one of the greatest potential hazards of the industry) is, in my view, severely underestimated throughout the dSGEIS. This is particularly acute where multi-well projects are under development.
Section 5.4.3 Composition of Fracturing Fluids
This section contains gravely serious deficiencies. First, it is inappropriate for NYSDEC to accept any less than full disclosure from energy companies regarding the chemicals they intend to use in natural gas extraction projects. Products that are not completely described should not be permitted to be used in New York.
The catalog of health concerns noted by NYSDOH for each chemical category leaves much to be desired. Ecological impacts of the various chemicals are entirely omitted, and some important human health effects are missed as well.
For example, one of the bromine-based biocides, 22-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) has been shown to be extremely toxic to aquatic organisms. In fact, DBNPA is damaging or lethal to trout, bay oysters, Mysid shrimp and Daphnia magna (so-called “water fleas”) at concentrations below its chemical detection limit (4). The dSGEIS segment on health effects from microbicides was summarized thus: “Toxicity information is limited for several of the microbicidal chemicals.” This level of scientific scrutiny is dangerously inadequate for an agency charged with promoting public and environmental safety.
Worse yet, some information provided in this section is misleading. For example, acetylenic alcohols, including propargyl alcohol, are inappropriately grouped with simple alcohols and glycols. This group is summarized in the dSGEIS thus: “Exposure to high levels of some alcohols (e.g. ethanol, methanol) affect (sic) the central nervous system.” Consider the toxicity of propargyl alcohol (5): this chemical (inhaled or absorbed through the skin) induces a range of ailments that include multi-organ failure. A sensitizer, it elicits increasing responses to decreasing exposures, and symptoms can recur months or years after all exposure has ceased. Propargyl alcohol is widely used as a corrosion inhibitor; therefore, no discussion of health effects is adequate that fails to warn potential exposure victims about this additive.
A major question is completely omitted in this section. No one understands, and no one at NYSDEC proposes to investigate pre-existing organisms in deep rock structures, including target formations. What archaea, bacteria and algae currently live in these strata? What is their value to society via biological, pharmaceutical or medical research? How are they affected by the drastic changes imposed on their ecosystems by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing? NYSDEC should inventory, protect and develop these natural resources.
Finally, after describing (albeit incompletely) probable health effects from carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, reproductive toxins, and potentially lethal compounds planned for use at rates of hundreds or thousands of pounds per project, this section ends with the statement, “As mentioned earlier, the 1992 GEIS addressed hydraulic fracturing in Chapter 9, and NYSDOH’s review did not identify any potential exposure situations associated with horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing that are qualitatively different from those addressed in the GEIS.” I submit that size matters here; a massive difference in scale requires an adjustment in regulatory approach in the same sense as different care is needed for a tiger than for a house cat.
Based on the deficiencies of this section alone, I would recommend withdrawal of this draft supplement to the GEIS for oil, gas and solution mining.Section 5.11.1.1 Subsurface Mobility of Fracturing Fluids
This section and the associated Appendix 11 register a glaringly flawed assumption: that fracturing fluids are being pumped into dry rock formations. Analysis of flowback fluids clearly indicate (dSGEIS Table 5-8 and Section 5.11.3.1) that rock strata including target formations are filled with salts-saturated water, i.e. brine. The ability of deep rock formations to accommodate additional non-compressible fluids may well depend on their ability to direct them into faults, abandoned wells or other, more porous strata. This consideration, along with accounting for repeat hydraulic fracturing, should guide a fresh attempt to model the subterranean flow of fluids introduced at high pressures for natural gas extraction processes.
Section 5.12 Flowback Water Treatment, Recycling and Reuse
This section contains some of the most optimistic operational projections in the entire dSGEIS. Several of the modular technologies mentioned in this section are annotated, “Modular … units have been used in the Barnett Shale.” This might be better phrased, “… have been tested in the Barnett Shale”, because none of them are in widespread use anywhere in the US. I suggest a more realistic set of assumptions that anticipate that 10% of flowback fluids will be reused / recycled, and the rest will require transport to distant disposal sites.
Section 5.13 Waste Disposal; 5.16.6 Brine Disposal; 5.16.7 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in Marcellus Production Brine
Gas well flowback fluid is currently classified as “industrial waste” under state code (Article 27, Title 9, Paragraph 371.1. (e) (2) (v)). However, 18 of the 69 compounds (dSGEIS Tables 5-8, 5-9, 6-1 and 6-2), as well as radionuclides (dSGEIS Appendix 13) reported in flowback fluids are listed in New York as hazardous substances. Therefore, the NYSDEC commissioner should, by his authority under Article 27, Title 9, Paragraph 371.2 (b) (2), reclassify gas well flowback fluids as hazardous waste.
Permits for high-volume gas well development projects should not be issued unless and until intrastate infrastructure designed specifically for treating their hazardous wastes is built and functioning.Chapter 6 Potential Environmental Impacts
Conspicuously absent from mention here are the potential impacts of residual infrastructure that remains in the ground when gas extraction activities are completed. No complete inventory, let alone hazard assessment of abandoned oil and gas wells in New York has been assembled to date, and no long-term follow-up assessments related to proposed development are suggested in this dSGEIS. This constitutes a major failure in operational planning.
Section 6.1.1 Water Withdrawals
Large parts of the Southern Tier of New York situated over developable shale gas deposits lie outside regions regulated by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, the Delaware River Basin Commission or New York City’s West of Hudson Watershed. NYSDEC makes no provision for monitoring or limiting water withdrawals in these areas. This constitutes a major failure in operational planning.
Section 6.1.6 Waste Transport
Manifesting of gas drilling wastes (hazardous by nature if not by state law) should be required for transport by Part 364-permitted haulers. Description of these loads as “general industrial waste” poses unacceptable risks for emergency responders to roadway incidents.
Section 6.5 Air Quality
This elegantly researched section suffers from a failure to aggregate emissions from a number (several to several hundred) of vicinal gas wells. Such aggregation is currently being investigated in Dish, Texas (6, 7). Preliminary results suggest that hazardous levels of benzene, ozone and other pollutants that accumulate in an intensively drilled area can measurably influence the health of people who live there. NYSDEC scientists would do well to study these data and consider ways to develop commensurate analytical scope in New York.
Section 6.7 Centralized Flowback Water Surface Impoundments
Central impoundments for flowback fluids should not be permitted. Along with maintenance of pit liners and connecting conduits, maintenance of headspace should be expected to be problematic. New York has virtually no capacity for treating these fluids (dSGEIS, (Section 5.13 Waste Disposal), and facilities in Pennsylvania are maximally utilized. With nowhere to go, flowback in New York will build to critical (and greater) mass. If not contained in rigid containers, this fluid will overflow into surrounding properties. This would be particularly troublesome during periods of heavy rain or snow.
Section 6.8 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in the Marcellus Shale
This section appropriately mentions the frequent occurrence of radiondclides in flowback fluids, but omits any mention of state and federal regulatory incongruities that usually complicate disposal of mixed hazard (chemical and radiological) waste. This is particularly salient in evaluating future applications by energy companies for beneficial use determinations to permit spreading of flowback fluids on roads (Appendix 12). I recommend consideration of these complications before any such applications are accepted.
Section 6.9 Visual Impacts
Others may consider the photos of actual wellsites in New York reassuring; I do not. Even before scale-up to an unprecedented level of intensity, this kind of development in my region of the state should be expected to exert a significant negative impact on hunting, fishing, local recreation and tourism. Regarding mitigation measures, I submit that “hope and wait until the worst is over” is not a viable strategy.
Chapter 7 Mitigation Measures
Throughout this section, suggestions that NYSDEC personnel should have the opportunity to supervise various critical steps in the development process (eg. surface casing cementing) should be replaced with mandates that agency personnel shall be present for any such operations. Similarly, language proposing that mitigation steps “may” or “should” be taken should be replaced with “shall be taken”.
Section 7.1.4.2 Sufficiency of As-Built Wellbore Construction; Appendices 8, 9 & 10
Existing regulations regarding the mixing and placement of concrete are incoherent. Particularly egregious is the requirement that poured and pumped concrete should be left undisturbed in a casing until a compressive strength of 500 pounds per square inch is achieved. The chemistry of concrete curing is minimally defined as the hydration of calcium silicate. The rate at which this process occurs depends heavily on several factors that include temperature, water concentration, and the presence of modifying chemicals. All these factors are in flux with any gas well project: (1) Temperature varies from as low as 23 deg. F at the surface to as high as 150 deg. F in the target formation – and neither extreme is ideal for curing. (2) Water and brines are ubiquitous in New York subterranean rock strata, and can either add to or subtract from water available for curing depending on the layer depth. (3) Commonly added fluidizers and plasticizers all tend to impede curing, but their responses to varying temperatures and water concentrations are not well characterized.
Taken together, these issues make meaningful determination of the time at which concrete throughout a well casing has reached any particular compressive strength practically incalculable. Further, shock resistance (related to channel or crack formation) is better correlated with tensile than compressive strength. I submit that the relative success in sealing New York gas well projects to date has been the result of many lucky guesses. This is not a basis for sound regulation. I strongly recommend instituting a standard period of time for waiting on concrete to cure, with the specific standard to be set by rigorous investigation of the salient parameters.
A concrete bond log should be required for every surface casing. Further, specific site conditions under which intermediate casings must be installed should be formulated.Section 7.1.11 Protecting the Quality of New York City’s Drinking Water Supply
I take umbrage at the notion that my or any other New Yorker’s water supply is less worth protecting than that of New York City. Even so, the NYC Department of Environmental Protection, in its final impact assessment (8), makes clear that the best of proposed regulations are anticipated to expose New York City’s drinking water supply to substantial risk of serious damage. Since this is the case, then acceptably safe development of gas from New York’s shales is probably not possible. My recommended response to this realization is that NYSDEC abort any attempt to update gas development regulations and institute a state-wide ban on high-intensity gas development.
Section 7.1.12 Setbacks
This section is incoherent, lacking clarity about how interacting factors (e.g. occupied dwellings, public buildings, and various water supplies) should be interpreted in terms of setback requirements.
There is no mention of setbacks from abandoned oil or gas wells; this is a major omission.Section 7.5 Protecting Air Quality
Frankly, major industrialization of a region is incompatible with protecting air quality. If the goal is maintenance of air quality that is characteristic of New York’s Southern Tier today, then the mitigation measures discussed (not mandated) are doomed to failure.
Section 7.11 Mitigating Road Use Impacts
NYSDEC offers practically no assistance in this endeavor. Municipalities should receive assistance with posting and appropriate bonding of roadways, and a centralized trust fund should be established to protect private taxpayers from having to pay for roads ruined by energy corporations and their subcontractors. This section contains no discussion of privatization of gas revenues accompanied by socialization of the risks and costs of collateral damage, let alone any mitigation of this scenario.
Section 7.12 Mitigating Community Character Impacts
This section contains no description of existing community character with which future attributes might be compared. Major potential impacts omitted from this section include: influences of permanent industrialization, changes in the types and numbers of cottage industries now typical of New York’s Southern Tier, and influences of the “bust” phase of a boom / bust economic cycle. I recommend that NYSDEC conduct a rigorous examination of existing community character as prelude to an expanded discussion of impacts mitigation.
Section 7.13 Mitigating Cumulative Impacts
There is no meaningful discussion of cumulative impacts in this section, let alone any attempt to describe mitigation measures. This constitutes one of the greatest failures of operational planning in this dSGEIS.
Chapter 9 Alternative Actions
Option 9-1, Prohibition of Development, is ruled against by NYSDEC on the basis that it would violate state law, which requires development of natural resources. I submit that, in light of the overwhelming value of resources that would be damaged or destroyed by intensive gas extraction from New York’s shales, it is the sole legal and just option.
Appendix 15 Hydraulic Fracturing – 15 Statements from Regulatory Officials
Hydraulic fracturing has, in my view, metamorphosed from a technically challenging array of methods to release trapped gases from rocks into a caricature of all that is feared about the natural gas industry. Judged soberly, these methods elevate risk from gas extraction processes primarily by requiring the transport, handling and use of exotic chemicals which would otherwise not need to be moved, handled, or disposed of. In comparison to these elements of risk, the actual steps involved with “fracking” are anticlimactic – though not risk-free.
Attribution of a specific accident to any single risk factor is always fraught with difficulty, even when that factor is known by the weight of evidence to be significant. For example, the fact that one of the drivers in an auto accident was intoxicated is not de facto evidence that the drunk driver was at fault. Still, the drunk driver bears some responsibility.
As this issue has developed publicly, I have observed energy company spokespeople caricaturizing “hydrofracturing” as that demon which is feared by the uneducated public, but which investigators can never make culpable – provided it is considered in the narrowest methodological sense and as a sole causative factor. I am disappointed that NYSDEC has chosen to perpetuate this caricature.
This appendix demonstrates, more than anything, the extent to which a variety of public officials are willing to collude in half-truths. While a handful of state officials who were queried acknowledged that gas extraction produces unintentional consequences, all whose responses were included here acceded to the premise – without context, of course – that, under the narrow conditions of the question posed, hydraulic fracturing has never polluted any groundwater.
NYSDEC had the opportunity in an appendix like this to perform a valuable service of education to the public, putting issues with hydraulic fracturing into proper context. I could not be more disappointed that you chose a different path.Respectfully,
Ron Bishop
References Cited:1. Arthur Berman, “Lessons from the Barnett Shale suggest caution in other shale plays”,
ASPO International Peak Oil Conference, August 10, 2009.2. Walter Hang, “Drilling Spills Profiles”, Toxics Targeting, Inc. 2009
3. Ron Bishop, “Experiences with Natural Gas Extraction: Interviews with Health Officials
in New York’s Counties”, private communication 2009. (Attached)4. EPA, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) 2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
(DNPA)”, September 1994.5. BPPB Consortium, “Propargyl Alcohol U.S. EPA HPV Challenge Program Revised
Submission”, July 2003.6. Jack Z. Smith, “Texas expediting environmental complaints on natural gas operations in
Barnett Shale”, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, December 23, 2009.7. Wilma Subra, “Results of Health Survey of Current and Former DISH/Clark, Texas
Residents”, Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, December 2009.8. New York City Department of Environmental Protection, “Impact Assessment of Natural
Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply Watershed: Final Impact Assessment
Report”, December 22, 2009.
Click on image for video:
Albany, NY, January 25, 2010 (see previous posts below): While approximately 500 people were inside the Convention Center (under The Egg), a group of demonstrators paused on the New York State Capitol Building’s steps — despite the rain and 40 mph gusts — demanding a “STATEWIDE BAN” on unconventional gas drilling.
Tags: Albany, rally, statewide ban
_______________________
_______________________
__________________________
_______________________
_______________________
__________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
Tags: Albany, rally, statewide ban
The 01/25/2010 Albany West Capitol Park Rally of over 500 people
opposed to unconventional gas drilling was moved inside, under the Egg
________________________________________________________________
DEC workers supporting 01/25 people’s protest of the DEC’s dSGEIS (door Stop Giving Extraction Industry Shelter)… The dSGEIS concluded that cumulative effects of tens or hundreds of thousands of toxic waste production sites would not have a cumulative effect worth considering.
________________________________________________________
Demonstrators chanting “No fracking way!” and “Statewide ban!”
___________________________________________________________
Joan Tubridy (CDOG) speaking, with Chief Oren Lyons (Onondaga Nation) by her side. Both support a statewide ban on unconventional gas drilling. Chief Lyons called upon political leaders to consider the impact of their decisions upon the next seven generations. When Tubridy finished her listing of reasons why we should have a statewide ban, those assembled at the rally loudly chanted “Statewide ban!” for a full minute.
Tags: Albany, rally, statewide ban
Activists for statewide ban on toxic waste producing gas drilling disrupt DEC dSGEIS hearing in NYC
(New York City, 11/10) A burgeoning movement to counter proposals for a two-tiered standard of environmental protection from shale gas drilling in New York State erupted in the first New York City DEC hearing on the proposed State regulations. The filled-to-capacity hearing began – as usual – with elected officials testifying, with clear intent that they would leave before listening to the hours of testimony for a statewide ban by New York City residents. But as Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler introduced his divisive approach of protecting only a small portion of the State’s vast environment, a city representative of the movement for a statewide ban on the dangerous practice walked up onto the stage.
Taking the stage, Alex Johnson, a life-long resident of New York City, declared to much applause, “We want a statewide ban. We don’t need hearings to regulate this. Gas drilling is dangerous and we need to ban it. We stand with thousands of New Yorkers –and most of you here tonight– in demanding a statewide ban on the use of the destructive fossil fuel extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing in New York’s Marcellus and other shales.”
Alluding to the rally for a statewide ban and the simultaneous press conference by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer to ban drilling in the “New York City watershed” Johnson emphasized, “We reject the divisive call for a ban for New York City’s water by slippery politicians and corporate environmental organizations. We call on elected officials to represent the clear opinions of experts and citizens that this process is too dangerous to allow anywhere in New York State.”
Many New Yorkers in the audience applauded and continued to speak out. Wendy Malcom of the Safe Water Movement stood up in the audience calling for recognition that the DEC hearing was merely to facilitate drilling. “Don’t Frack New York State,” Ms. Malcom chanted. “Groups across the state including the Haudenosaunee Iroquois Confederation declared they would not participate in the drilling hearing because the DEC is using the hearings to promote gas drilling. Our communities and the planet are facing a climate catastrophe that requires Governor Paterson to ban gas drilling and promote a transition to 100% renewables within 10 years.”
Fifty-one (51) organizations across New York State (many based in New York City) have declared their support of a statewide ban as expressed in the recently released petition.
Johnson shouted as he was being escorted that “the DEC is mandated to facilitate even environmentally disastrous gas exploration and drilling in our State. Governor Paterson can ban this process. The electorate must reclaim control over the commons, to protect our water supplies from irreversible contamination, and to develop sustainable energy alternatives.”
The intervention by the twenty activists was met with much applause. Some were escorted from the hearing place.
For more information, go to www.un-naturalgas.org
For interviews, call: Laura Sheinkopf, 516.314.0011
To NYC statewide drilling ban activists -
from your fellow fighters upstate,
t h a n k y o u
DELAWARE-OTSEGO AUDUBON SOCIETY
PO Box 544, ONEONTA, NY 13820
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 11/2/09
AUDUDON GROUP OPPOSES HYDROFRACTURING, CALLS PROCESS AN UNACCEPTABLE DANGER
The Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society has announced its opposition to hydrofracturing gas exploration and production in our region. In a recent statement released by the group, DOAS also calls on NY State to permanently ban the practice.
Dangers to humans, wildlife, and water resources were cited as primary reasons the group finds hydrofracking unacceptable. The statement details multiple areas of concern created by injecting hundreds of millions of gallons of water treated with toxic chemicals under ground at extremely high pressures.
“After a careful review, our board of directors found it unacceptable to expose present and future generations to the contamination produced by this drilling technique,” said DOAS president Tom Salo. The group’s statement calls hydrofracking ” . . . an assault on the very resources that sustain life,” and says, “this damage will remain for millennia, and will threaten unseen future generations, as well as present-day humans and wildlife.”
Other reasons cited for the group’s opposition include wildlife and social impacts from noise and air pollution, large water withdrawals, and damage to habitats and roads from pipelines and wells.
The DOAS statement reads “Hundreds of wells are anticipated for our area, and this may change the region to a permanent industrial landscape. Potential contamination and depletion of water, and pollution of air, soil, and of farm and forest ecosystems could destroy the many resources available today. Water withdrawal and contamination are of special concern. The fragmentation and loss of habitats, and the disturbances of noise and traffic will have an adverse affect on birds and other wildlife, some already in precipitous decline.”
A recently released impact statement from the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation is insufficient to overcome the fundamental threats from hydrofracking, according to DOAS Director Jean T. Miller. “How can we engineer away permanent physical changes and poisoning of the earth?” she said. “We are trading a few more years of fossil fuels for tens of thousands of years of damaged and tainted ground below us.”
Regarding the DEC proposal, DOAS’ statement reads, “Even with the most stringent controls and oversight, this activity is an unacceptable danger to our planet, with no environmental benefits.”
The Audubon group is calling upon the state of New York to permanently ban hydrofracking. “In our view, there is no way this can be done without serious and long-term negative impacts,” said Salo. DOAS is urging the public and their members to contact DEC on the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement before November 30. Comments should be sent to
dSGEIS Comments,
Bureau of Oil & Gas Regulation, NYSDEC Division of Mineral
Resources, 625 Broadway, Third Floor, Albany, NY 12233-6500,
or submitted on-line at DEC’s website.
The DOAS position on gas drilling and hydrofracking wells can be found on their website <http://www.doas.us/>www.doas.us.
Tags: ban, hydraulic fracturing, NYS
Public Hearing on the dSGEIS to be held in Oneonta,
Foothills Performing Arts Center, Atrium
Monday, November 9, 7:00 to 9:30 pm
Doors open at 6:00 pm
Local hearing for public comment on DEC’s Draft of the SGEIS
October 30, 2009, Oneonta, NY. The City of Oneonta and Otsego County together are holding a public hearing for citizens to voice concerns about the proposed regulations governing gas drilling in New York State. Through the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining (SGEIS), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) defines the safeguards drilling companies must take to preserve the quality of our groundwater, and how the DEC will monitor compliance.
DEC is holding hearings in other parts of the state, but officials in Oneonta and Otsego County feel it is important to hold a more locally accessible meeting. This is an urgent need as many property owners throughout the county have signed leases and drilling has begun on two wells. Recent drilling accidents in Pennsylvania have caused concern among local citizens. The quality of the SGEIS will have a major impact on the quality and quantity of the water in our lakes, rivers, aquifers and wells.
Governor Paterson requested that the DEC develop a supplemental GEIS because the process of drilling that is coming to New York State is dramatically different from traditional gas drilling. Hydrofracturing horizontally drilled wells involves highly toxic chemicals that even in very small quantities can poison our water. This makes it vital that the laws governing the process be rigorous. The comment period, ending November 30, is the final opportunity for input on the document. It is imperative that we provide the most comprehensive feedback possible to make the regulations rigorous.
Experts, environmental organizations, and landowners have expressed concerns not only on many specific items in the draft, but also on the insufficient consideration of the cumulative impacts. The DEC is required to consider all substantive comments before issuing the final SGEIS. Comments at this meeting should be in one of the categories the DEC considers substantive. This includes: definition of the project; definition of each issue & conclusions about its impact; methods of mitigation; implementation. For example, substantive comments would include topics such as whether the DEC: looks only at individual well sites without assessing impact of a significant number of wells statewide; adequately addresses the impact of this scale of water withdrawals; proposes sufficient baseline water testing; requires the rate of drilling of new wells be done in phases.
Read the parts of the 804 page document that are of most concern to you. It is available on the DEC website at www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html , or you can see a printout at the Huntington Library.
ASSEMBLY STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:
Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement governing natural gas drilling.
.
PURPOSE:
To solicit public input on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement governing natural gas drilling.
.
ALBANY
Thursday
October 15, 2009
9:00 a.m.
Assembly Parlor
New York State Capitol – Room 306
Thursday
October 15, 2009
9:00 a.m.
Assembly Parlor
New York State Capitol – Room 306
.
On September 30, 2009, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation released a draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) regarding well permit issuance for horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing to develop the Marcellus shale and other low-permeability gas reserves. The purpose of this hearing is to solicit public input on the draft SGEIS.
Persons wishing to present pertinent testimony to the Committee at the above hearing should complete and return the enclosed reply form as soon as possible. It is important that the reply form be fully completed and returned so that persons may be notified in the event of emergency postponement or cancellation. Oral testimony will be limited to ten minutes’ duration. Ten copies of any prepared testimony should be submitted at the hearing registration desk. The Committee would appreciate advance receipt of prepared statements.
In order to meet the needs of those who may have a disability, the Assembly, in accordance with its policy of non-discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), has made its facilities and services available to all individuals with disabilities. For individuals with disabilities, accommodations will be provided, upon reasonable request, to afford such individuals access and admission to Assembly facilities and activities.
Robert K. Sweeney
Member of Assembly
Chairman
Committee on Environmental Conservation
Member of Assembly
Chairman
Committee on Environmental Conservation
.
===============================
2 weeks to read 800 pages
2 hours to drive to Albany
10 minutes to present comment
hmmmm……
From http://www.citizenscampaign.org/
=======================================
CITIZENS CAMPAIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
ACTION ALERT!
TELL ALBANY TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE AND PROTECT WATER
The public needs 120 days to review massive new draft oil and gas drilling regulations
On September 30, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) finally released the long-awaited Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS) for Oil & Gas Drilling in New York. The document is over 800 pages long, and Albany is only giving the people 60 days to review it. Tell Albany it cannot ignore the people! New Yorkers must be able to understand and weigh in on this issue. Meaningful input from the public is essential for a healthy democracy.
Tell Albany to give New Yorkers 120 days to comment on this massive program that will affect our environment for decades.
The huge oil and gas industry is pressuring Albany to open up for drilling in the state. New Yorkers cannot afford to rush through a process that will affect the health of our precious water resources for decades to come. Unconventional drilling from high volume hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of water. Only a few days ago, Cabot Oil & Gas in Pennsylvania was shut down for chemical spills. New York’s elected officials need to proceed with caution and take extraordinary steps to ensure the protection of New York’s most valuable natural resource, freshwater. Albany must hold at least 7 public hearings in the affected regions of the state and allow adequate time for the people to comment.
Information from the NYS DEC on the DSGEIS can be found here:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/47554.html.
What You Can Do!
Call Governor Paterson, DEC Commissioner Grannis, and your state Assembly member and senator to demand that Albany does not rush to accommodate the oil & gas industry, and allows the people of New York to weigh in on their future!
Phone call tips:
Tell them:
- Your name and your town/city.
- The DEC must extend the oil and gas drilling comment period to 120 days.
- The DEC must hold at least 7 public hearings in affected regions, including New York City.
Please call:
- Governor Paterson: 518-474-8390
- DEC Commissioner Grannis: 518-402-8545
- Your NYS Assembly member: to find out who your Assembly member is and their phone number, visit: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/
- Your NYS Senator: To find out who your Senator is and their phone number, visit:
http://www.nysenate.gov/senators
Thank you for taking action. Together we make a difference!
=========================================
800 pages / 60 days = 13.49 pages per day.
DEC says it intends to schedule “Public Information Sessions” - not hearings.
.
.
Dr Bill Pammer, then of the Sullivan County Planning Department, spoke at an event in Ithaca, NY on May 6, 2009. While discussing what local governments could do to protect their assets before intensive gas extraction begins, he said:
“The DEC is driving this process.
Regulators become part of the sectors they regulate.”
.
.
Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica:
New York State Paves Way
for Gas Drilling With
Release of Environmental Review
Nornew knew it all along; do the citizens of New York State?
See also the New York Times:
State Issues Rules on Upstate Natural Gas Drilling Near City’s Water
The DEC could not allow a ban on horizontal drilling / high-volume hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Catskill/Delaware Watershed (also known as the NYC watershed) without admitting that HD/HVHF for natural gas is fundamentally unsafe – everywhere else in the state too.
New York City, if you want to protect your water,
you’re going to have to join
the fight to ban HD/HVHF statewide.
.
>> Come together, New York <<
.
http://www.un-naturalgas.org/hydraulic_fracturing_a-z.htm#NYCs%20water
.
Tags: DEC, NYC, NYS, ProPublica, SGEIS, watershed
0